I did some reconnaissance recently, and delved into some pretty good arguments against the Alt-Right. Apart from the anti-large-CEO image the technocrats give off, there was the obvious reoccuring theme of 'racism' but also 'sexism'. I was a bit puzzled, but then it became clear to me. Yes, the author of this article was a feminist (I'm reviewing the article now, it'll be up soon) a male feminist, to be precise, or perhaps he was just fond of loose girls he can easily have sex with. The guy seemed like he had done a bit of research, but focused far too much on the biography of certain big names, and it ended up being more tedious than interesting. Not much is interesting these days apart from the reactosphere, honestly. But back to the point... sexism.
What we need to understand, and what a lot of people need to understand is the difference between timelessness and anachronism. Some things are timeless, like man and woman. Some things are anachronistic, like, the oppression of women throughout the ages due to the lack of feminism. I absolutely despise hearing 'you should be grateful for feminism that you have rights today' or 'women in the 19th century were so oppressed'. Give me a break. We live in a completely different world now, our minds are being controlled and meld to the linking of upper management. We are tools and we are forced into chaos and degeneracy, self-destructive behaviour and sin. How is this better than another time? Does the liberation of women's right to murder her unborn children good for society? Is the liberation of woman an antecedent to an oppressive patriarchy?
We often hear the good old: women were treated like cattle! Like objects! Well, yes, in the aristocracy. People don't take Medieval History classes it seems, but when we look at Medieval England, you end up on one of the most egalitarian society in the middle ages. Commoners and peasants were free to marry who they wanted, men and women were seen an equal and they would take the name of the man for the family due to the risk of mortality in childbirth of the woman (through sepsis, eclampsia, blood pressure failures, to name a few). Nobles, however, were more patriarchal and business-like in their trade deals. Women were, indeed, valued highly for their virginity, pureness, whiteness, religious morals, beauty, and dem hips. Noble girls would marry from a median age of 13-14 to a man who was not younger than 30 and sexually educated by him. We romanticize this relationship in romance novels as a form of rape fantasy that grows on the forced marriage, but it wasn't uncommon that nobles plead with their parents to become nuns instead, committed suicide, or ran away to a distance relative. However, women then, were also a protected class. While you had no choice of your husband, you were also privileged, rich and healthy, with servants and lavish everything. Why complain? Noble women clearly had lovers on the side, a younger stable boy, a charming butler, even perhaps a beautiful and shy chamber maid. It's ridiculous to think that women at the time didn't seek out adventure in sexuality, but the taboo and restriction made it for them all the more exciting.
Today, feminists take pride in asserting their sexual dominance like men, in the streets in the form of Slut Walks. Sluts, wearing awful, distasteful things like tape in an X on their saggy nipples, act in a crass manner and demand contraception be free and abortions on demand. Is this the anti-sexual-confinement rally really supposed to be? I say confinement, because in liberation, there must have been confinement in the first place. But what do sluts still want? Women can have secret lovers, they've often have. It's rare, as well, that a loose woman, these days, is loyal to her 'boyfriend'. Often she'll resort to calling herself polyamorous so she can feel justified for being emotionally-distant about the hundreds of plastified dicks she's had in her.
I'm will be severe on this topic, I will not apologize for the sluts. The truth about society, about politics, about culture, about history and its repetition doesn't care about your feelings. It doesn't care about the gloriousness of your orgasm, it doesn't care about how comfortable and safe you feel like your temporary sexual partner. The truth is blunt and it says this: claiming that women are liberated when they are encouraged to commit sexual immoralities is a detriment to women and to the society as a whole. 1.2 million abortions cost the government quite a bit of money to cover. Abortions are morally wrong and can be morally staining to a perfectly moral woman (Lord is with you, sister). STD's are rampant, and they may affect the conditions for children inside the womb. They are also disgusting and condom or not you should NEVER fuck a woman who has an STD unless you have one too. Don't risk it. Women are sexually available, are recently more sexually hungry than ever before. Women are turning to lesbians left and right, and if you didn't know... lesbians have 8-hour-long mutual masturbation sessions, which honestly sounds more orgiastic than what the Romans were doing at the end of the Empire.
Real 'misogyny' does happen, and it happens mainly in the underclass. In welfare states, the underclass and the lower-middle class can sometimes coalesce, where within we'll find cucks who abuse women in order to assert their dominance. Dominating a woman, however real a need it is for men, should never come in the form of degradation or cruelty. It may, however, come in the form of humiliation. I used to think that women were born more humble than men for being the weaker sex, but it was Eve who bit into the fruit, who was lured by temptation most easily. Women are emotional manipulators, and we all know how destructive emotional abuse can be. Don't kid me. You can get punched in the face, that can be fun, but tortured endlessly by women... that's horrible. To save a woman you love, you might have to humble her. This means she need to be humiliated, but not through a prank, an assault, or abuse of any kind. No, you need to be virtuous, caring, but firm, stable, and morally sound. When you control a woman about deviant ways, she will resist, but if you love her and she shows an inch of wishing to please you, to change for the better, work with her. A lot of women are lost and depressed these days and personally I have not found a more accepting and non-misogynistic space as the reactosphere and members of the Alt-Right, as well as conservatives. Perhaps it is because I agree with them, but they didn't seem to treat me differently. When a man admits to himself that he is different than a woman, and that a woman admits that she is different than a man, there is far more incentive for the both of want to work together. It's not about blurring gender lines and then not knowing what the fuck to make of this demi-girl pansexual queerfolk.
But what about the right to vote? Should women have the right to vote in case men want to continue to oppress them? Well, men don't tend to vote socialist. Men tend to vote capitalist, because they seek opportunities to provide. Women, seek opportunities for meeting new and perhaps better men (immigration) and having social security (welfare, benefits, free shit). Socialism is a horrible idea and it usually comes with a pinch of across-the-board oppression, poverty, starvation, gulags, political correctness, book burnings, pestilence, and sometimes genocide. Women, however, who want socialism are the same depressed women who are in the world today, lost, because of feminism, thinking their clits are magic lamps that if are rubbed just enough, a genie will come out and their life goals will suddenly be achieved. They seek security in the government, marry it, instead of men, because men don't know what to do about those insane women. MGTOW is a thing now, and honestly, I think it's great. There is a lack of normal people in the middle class now who want to get together, get married and live a happy family life. Out of my friends who are not Christian, probably 4 women have families. A society where women are healthy and happy, yeah, sure give them the right to vote, but in this society, where women are in constant victimhood, who don't stand up to abusive partners, who live off telling people how to live and what to do, no, they're just going to vote for more government, which oppresses the rest of the population. Is that misogynistic?
I would claim that feminism is misogynistic. You can make the claim today that air conditioning in offices is misogynistic (put a sweater on?). Sweater-vests, they're nice, wear them.
Gender roles are not misogynistic. I love them, personally, they make me happier than ever before. I feel confident as a woman and it makes me happy that I decided to be a mother and not follow feminist rhetoric. I am a devout wife and Christian, and it sounds so cheesy and conservative, but it just works. In control, I've found freedom. In being tied to loved ones, I've found happiness. I will NOT be voting socialist anytime soon.
Wanting your country and culture to continue growing is not misogynistic. I can understand why it seems like it is in a liberal context, but matriarchies just don't work. You can't have women controlling men, that makes them biologically obsolete and a lot of men take pride in their fertility.
Women are submissive, they love it, and that's okay. It's not the patriarchy, it's just the way women are. They're caring and they want to tame men, and it's okay to want sex, but try to have a boyfriend at a time, and try to stay with him. It'll help you both overall if you fall in love and realize that love is more than infatuation, but a long-lasting (or eternal) bond of friendship, eroticism, and partnership.
Real misogynists are disgusting, and frankly, anyone in the Alt-Right who speaks about women in an undignified way is undignified to be called a man, even less a neoreactionary.